December 15, 2008

They've titled this one "Qualifications and Disqualifications." We recorded this one on December 11th, so the first segment doesn't go as deeply as I'd like into the subject represented by my tag "Madigan vs. Blagojevich" (which you can click on below), but most of the stuff isn't so time-sensitive, and I'm sure, at the very least, you'll want to play the segment they've called "Ann says we need an atheist President who pretends to be devout."

ADDED: In this really short clip -- 22 seconds -- Balkin is asserting that Bill Clinton is deeply religious -- and a sinner -- and I unwittingly bite my lip Clintonesquely.

Aw, shoot... for a minute there, I thought it said "... me and Jack Black on Bloggingheads!. I had four thoughts flit through my head in the nanosecond I had that false impression:

1. How'd they get Jack Black?2. Jack Black blogs??3. How would Professor Althouse get a word in edgewise?4. In my pre-noon uncaffienated state, will I be able to tolerate Black's hyperactive demonstration of his preternatural (*smirk*) ADD affliction?

I agree with Althouse that there is no way that an openly atheistic candidate could ever be elected President.

And I agree with Althouse that it would be good, every once in a while, to have an atheist President, just as it would be good if other groups were proportionately represented.

But the idea that it's a positive thing to have an atheist President who pretends to be religious -- that part I just can't buy.

I know that it's not a perfect analogy, but it's similar to this: Suppose having some African ancestry still effectively prevented you from ever being elected, as it did in the last century. Would Barack Obama be justified to paint his face white?

And no, it's not a perfect analogy -- actually, pretending to be religious might be worse. There's an element of condescension here toward the religious -- an aspect of playing along with the primitives' rituals to keep them happy -- that shouldn't be a part of the President's character.

So I'm not going to salute President Obama for his probable stealth atheism, since, if he is an atheist, he's also a hypocrite, a liar, a coward, an opportunistic snake-oil salesman, and a condescending prick.

Sure, let's stipulate that the ineligibility clause should be interpreted somewhere else other than a court. That isn't in tension with your observation a minute or so later that laypersons look at a clause and say it should be followed regardless of whether it serves a purpose or not? Even if one thinks it's appropriate for the President in nominating and the Senate in confirming a nominee to be the final arbiter of what the clause means, that doesn't get one off the hook of deciding what it means and holding the political branches to that standard.

Balkin is right, and not only because his post pointed to mine. She is disqualified; it doesn't matter whether the President says it, the Senate says it, or, after she's confirmed, a court says it (several people have told me or implied that they think it's nonjusticiable, but no one can ever explain why it fits into the prevailing model of justiciability per Nixon), but it does matter that she isn't and someone with authority to stop this should say so.

Even Nixon waited until he'd taken his oath of office before he started abusing the public trust. It should not escape notice that the President-elect hasn't even taken the oath of office and he's already promising to violate it. Bush should ask the OLC to provide an advisory memo before January 20th.

Pastafarian, did you listen to what I said or are you inferring it from the segment title? I don't have the Prez "pretending" to be religious, I have him using the language of religion for public purposes.

Professor -- Yes, I watched that segement of the video. It took me a while to find it, since the numbers didn't match up.

And I don't see a difference between pretending to be religious, and "using the language of religion", while remaining secretly an atheist. What would be the point to using religious flourishes in speeches, if not to give those rubes back home the idea that you actually meant it? What would be the point to keeping your atheism a secret, if not to allow people to assume, with all your religious language, that you're as religious as them?

You're splitting hairs like a lawyer, finding a difference between "lying" and "not telling the truth".

But I suppose this makes the white-paint analogy more apt: Suppose Obama had painted his face white, used more a more "white" voice and pronunciation, and just never brought up the issue of his race, and allowed everyone to assume that he was white?

He's not pretending to be white; he's just using a really aggressive sun block. Or he's using the visual representation of whiteness for public purposes.

Would that be a good thing?

Or would it be better for him to have openly confronted racist attitudes (had he run at a time when those attitudes would have led to his defeat), even if this confrontation did result in his defeat?

And the notion that a politician could get away with simply "not openly saying that he's not religious" is absurd. At some point, he will be asked precisely how religious he is, and at that point, he can either admit his lack of faith, or lie.

I'm saying that it would be better for him to tell the truth, admit his lack of faith, and lose the election, than it would for him to lie, just to get elected, betraying his principles as well as his supporters, and "going along to get along" in a corrupt system.

But I think that we all know which choice Obama would make there -- "go along to get along" seems to have been his personal motto.

I've thought all along that Obama wasn't really very religious, and that he sat in that church listening to those sermons like an anthropologist watching natives dancing around a fire. I consider that to be assholish beyond all measure.

"At some point, he will be asked precisely how religious he is, and at that point, he can either admit his lack of faith, or lie."

No, he can say something like: "I think personal religious faith, for many of us, is a private matter. Indeed, it is for God to know whether a person has truly lived up to the demands of religions. Publicly, I try to be a good and ethical person, and I hope I live up to what I owe the American people for trusting me with the responsibility of the presidency. I think that part of being a good President is to respect and honor all of the many rich religious traditions in the United States, and I hope and trust that all Americans will join me in this endeavor, which is fundamental to our long tradition of religious liberty."

It one of the worst times of year for relegious people. Not the wonderful time of Advent in preparation for the birth of the Baby Jesus.

But it is that time of year when the mooks who never go to church sit in your pew and you have to sit on the side. I mean you are supposed to be happy that they are coming back to the church but they are sitting in my seat.

Some Presidents will say yes, but I don't think they have to say no if their answer is no and I wouldn't recommend it.

I wouldn't recommend an evasive non-answer like the one you posted at 12:52PM either. Straightforward patriotism is absolutely mandatory for any politician with national ambitions. Pols can't nuance their way around God or American greatness.

Well, I would agree with you, Althouse, that faith is a private matter. And I would add, that it’s the word ‘religious’ that throws off the conversation in these matters. One can have a faith practice and have a very deep, personal relationship with God, without religion. And it’s my own belief that God does not require a religion for this relationship - we (I believe) are only asked to do justice, love kindness and walk humbly. To respect and honor all of the many rich religious traditions in the United States is to walk humbly.

It's true reader. I mean I am glad they want to come back to church but they show no respect to the church or the people. One hoople parked her giant double wide stroller that costs more than a car in the aisle so the little old bent over Italian ladies who go to church every day couldn't get to communion. I mean show a little consideration. Sit in the back with rest of the moms with strollers. There’s a parking area which you would know about if you came more than three weeks a freakin' year.

This Sunday the gospel was about John the Baptist. I wonder what he would have done with monster yuppie strollers blocking the aisle.

Reader, not to go totally OT here but I came to a realization one Sunday morning listening to someone read the Prodigal Son (or possibly the Parable of the Lost Sheep), that as much as I wanted to be the good son who statyed home or the 99 sheep who didn't stray, I was lost and needed finding. So if I go every Sunday, I don't really "belong".

I'm kind of dense sometimes, because I always thought Jesus was talking about my cousin or my neighbor.

I find the stories of the prodigal son and the lost sheep endearing precisely because they are so dead-on with regard to human nature. Another one like that is the story of Martha and Mary, but that's the one I personally struggle with, because I really do identify with Martha and sort of resent the heck out of Mary. So telling!--I have no problem with the prodigals and lost sheep, but those Marys, darn it!

Love what you are wearing. Black is so good on you. The contrast between your hair and black is divine as in religious.

Many politicians of all stripes use religion as a way to reach out to some voters.

I am not religious. I wouldn't call myself agnostic or atheist though. I was raised catholic and my parents go every Sunday and my mom goes a couple of times during the week. But I wouldn't call them very religious.

The shaking of the rags did cease though because it started to attract male whitetail deers who were horny. These whitetail deers could create havoc in the town. They would bust down any miners cottage in order to mount one of the rag shakers. The whitetail deer did have some success. The children from these visits produced a plethora of circus show freaks. P.T. Barnum wrote about how much money Mineral Point made him in his autobiography.

Well, Titus, folklore does have it that the word came from Cornish wives calling their miner husbands to dinner by waving rags, and the mineral rush around the area of Mineral Point is what attracted the Cornish miners to settle in the area in the early 19th century. I sorta doubt that the rags were the type to which you refer, however.

By the way, there are Shake Rags in various places in this country, and that "Shake Rag" was also used as a title for a book about Elvis Presley, in whose hometown of Tupelo, Miss., there was a slum called "Shake Rag."

"Ann Althouse said... Oh, I'd get my words in -- edgewise and otherwise. I always have to constrain myself and try not to take over and interrupt too much. I'd love to have an irrepressibly hyperactive interlocutor."

Seriously? Wow... we're worlds apart on that score. Such a person would drive me nuts. Jack Black is entertaining as an entertainer, and I can watch his stuff all day long. But actually being in a two way conversation, or worse yet, a debate with such a personality I feel would be painfully wearying.

Professor -- No, I don't think that your 12:52 comment is a "crock" -- it's a very eloquently written collection of true and noble statements.

But it's still evasive; and when you're running for president, I'm not sure that you have the right to be evasive like that. If someone is a Satan worshiper or a Moonie or a Scientologist, I think that we'd all like to know about that and weigh it in our evaluation of that person's character, sanity, and qualifications.

Does that make me bigoted against Scientologists? I suppose so. I don't think that all religions, or their adherents, are equally irrational. And while there are very rational and reasonable Baptists, and batshit-crazy Baptists, there are only batshit-crazy Scientologists.

But beyond the practical value of knowing the answer to the question, the thing that gets me is the cowardice of the evasion.

Althouse said: "I think Pastafarian's question could be compared to the question "Do you think America is the greatest country in the history of the world?""

I don't think so. If someone needs to hedge or evade on this question, then they're an idiot. I suppose that you could ask what is meant by "greatest", but by any reasonable measure of the word, what country would they consider greater? I know that it sounds jingoistic, and doesn't score you any cool points in the campus coffee house, but there's only one clearly right answer to that question, unless you're mentally disabled.

Seriously, what nation has done more for humanity than the US?

Am I missing something here?

The only way that they could answer this question with a non-US answer would be if they're

a) Communists, and they prefer either the Soviet Union or China;

b) Hockey fans who have never heard of the Detroit Redwings, and think that Canada is still pre-eminent in that sport;

c) Self-flagellating shit-for-brains who think that the Indian wars and slavery negate everything that we've done to liberate people all over the world from oppression, disease, and poverty.

Althouse, thanks so much for linking to the pics from Mineral Point. It looks so cute. I can't wait to go. My mom will love it. Hopefully it won't be as cold as it is there now.

It was 65 here today. People were in shorts and tankeys-I totally disagree with making that kind of statement at this time of the year. Yea, you have amazing biceps but it is December and it is called appropriate.

But I will have to speak up to the town elders regarding the rag shaking history of this quaint hamlet.

The phrase “on the rag” originated sometime during the late 19th to early 20th century in Mineral Point, Wisconsin. When a woman was menstruating, she was “on the rag,” a phrase that literally described the way women of the day protected themselves from accidents during menstruation. Each woman had a supply of rags for specific use during menstruation. Women would layer rags together until they were sufficiently thick, then use pins to attach the rags to their panties. After each use, the women would wash the rags and hang them out to dry. Each woman had a special place (usually a bag in her underwear drawer) where she kept her rags for the next time she menstruated